| abstract
| - Hi all, As most of you know I've ran for bureaucrat 3 times before. I realize I have made several mistakes in those past 3 runs - most prominently comparing myself to another user. I've realized that was a mistake and had I deserved bureaucrat-ship more than him the community would have decided so. I plan to rectify those mistakes in this run. I will, however, be sticking to my main point which I hope most of you remember is influence. Admit it, being a bureaucrat gives you more influence. As I've explained in my last RfB I plan to use that influence purely for the good of the wiki, never for my own personal gain. I am going to use a user as an example where this extra influence could be useful: it seems PGB looks up to me, as is evident from his constant messaging on other wikis when he is blocked here. The added influence could make him understand why he is blocked and maybe even clean up his act. One thing I also did not convey in my past RfBs - I am perfectly content with being an admin, and you do not need to make me a bureaucrat to make me happy. I am very proud of being an admin on such a great wiki. However, I do believe that my work could be further extended with the added influence and tools that come with bureaucrat-ship. I truly think I am up to the job and I would like to hear more of your opinions. I do realize some of you will still vote oppose with the regular reasons but I will accept the votes and use them as critical assessment which I can work with to improve myself further. Thank you. 15:22, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Neutral Leaning Support - You definatly deserve it, but here are my views on 'crats. We only need two. What can a 'crat do that a sysop couldn't? Grant other users powers. As far as I am concerened, we only need one 'crat to do that. Then we need a backup 'crat. Incase the original 'crat goes inactive. Then the second 'crat shoulld appoint another 'crat. So again, you deserve it, but I don't feel we need another 'crat. Lt. Dunn (Talk) 16:39, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Per Poketape, Sorry man! --Braden 0.0 23:55, April 5, 2010 (UTC) Support - You definately deserve it, and I think you can become further helpful with extra powers. Your commitment to this wiki is outstanding. I think now you are ready. File:Richtofen bio image WaW.jpg Doc. Richtofen 17:02, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Support - I'm not a big fan of people who repeatedly go through the RfA/RfB process every month, and I was hoping that Callofduty4 would hold out for just a bit longer. However, Callofduty4 has shown perseverance and dedication as well a very high capacity to deal with wiki-wide issues. He is by far the most active admin and interacts with many of the editors. While he does have disagreements and does spit out at users now and then, he has shown through his numerous contributions and conversations that he respects users and is able to handle the huge issues relating to policy and changes to the site that other admins tend to leave alone. In short, Callofduty4 is the sort of person I can trust to get things done. --Scottie theNerd 17:33, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Comment - Couldn't have said it better myself. File:Richtofen bio image WaW.jpg Doc. Richtofen 19:02, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Support- Per Scottie theNerd's comment. Callofduty4 is an excellent user, he makes good edits, has been here for some time now, and he helps keep the wiki in order. I believe he deserves this 100%. E.TALEBarracks 19:50, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Neutral - First off, per Dunn. Secondly, I don't really think you are ready yet. Don't ask me why, I just feel like that. Maybe next month...sorry, man! File:AC-130 inventory icon MW2.gifCommander W567123danielWanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup? 19:54, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Support I think you have done great work on this site so you have my support :) --File:AC-130 inventory icon MW2.gif N'thro Notadee 20:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Comment - Dunn, there is a deeper meaning to bureaucrat-ship than just giving users powers. As I have outlined in my opening paragraphs there is influence that comes with it. Doc. Richtofen, E.TALE and Scottie thank you very much for your very encouraging and supportive votes. They mean a lot to me. Much appreciated. 22:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Oppose You unblocked PGB twice for no reason when he obviously did something wrong. I think comparing yourself to another user in your last RfB is unacceptable. Both of these things show the problems with you becomng a 'crat. File:Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2.gifPoketape Talk 22:59, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Per Poketape. Bringing this up may not be beneficial, but you have blocked me before, for something that was not instigated by me. File:Porter Justice emblem MW2.pngJUSTICE IS SERVED!T C E 20:48, April 8, 2010 (NZST) Support - While Cod4's past RfB's may have shown immaturity, this one most certainly does not. That coupled with his personal apology to me gives me faith that Cod4 has gotten past his feelings of self deserving, and I would be happy to have him as a bureaucrat. It'll be nice not to have as much weight on my shoulders. 23:10, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Change to Support - I still don't think we need another 'crat but you deserve it to much for me to say no. Lt. Dunn Talk 23:14, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - I personally believe that anyone has the potential to influence other people without being given a higher position of authority. There's no doubt you gain an immeasurable amount of respect from other users as a bureaucrat, but one can be just as influential with words rather than power. That's not to say that alone should warrant putting an upgrade in user powers on hold, but here's what's got me. During the recent, well, scandal with PGB, you went against the blockage decision of three other sysops when he had clearly crossed the line. As much as I appreciate you for looking at both sides of the story, it was unnecessary, and could have resulted in even more turmoil. Your eagerness to become a bureaucrat is admirable, but recent events have left me to wonder if you are ready yet. File:Semtex HUD icon MW2.png Bovell Talk | Contrib. 00:10, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Oppose - I have seen no community presence in you besides to occasional Talk Page edit. Right now, Saint and Chia are the only B-Crats we need. Especially after the whole "Unban PGB" mess. Now I respect you so mutch and I have nothing personal against you CoD4, but a B-Crat is a big step. I really havent seen any improvements from the last RfB. Slowrider7 06:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Comment - Besides, who thinks theyre a hero for doing something (Negative or positive) about PGB? Everyone is acting like he's a dragon, and whoever slays him first is obv the god of the Wiki. Btw, like you said, "you do not need to make me a bureaucrat to make me happy." Slowrider7 06:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Comment - A couple of issues have been raised so far: 1.
* The PGB incident. 2.
* Too many 'crats. The first was something that gave me doubts over the appropriateness in launching another RfB. The prudent side of me would have waited for another month for it to die down, and I had already decided that I would support Callofduty4 on his next RfB due to his generally positive conduct since the last RfB. It was hard for me to follow the same line with a premature RfB, but I do think that if we look beyond PGB, Callofduty4 is an asset to most other aspects of the wiki. In fairness, in my opinion very few admins handled the PGB incident maturely and professionally, and accusing Callofduty4 for being immature in this and other events is not an accurate reflection of the challenges faced by the admin team as a whole. Secondly, while we do have a healthy ratio of bureaucrats to sysops, I still feel that there are many things that need a bureaucrat to step in and handle that are still left open. For example, there are numerous discussions in the War Room that need closing; various policies to be revised or removed; dozens of AfDs that need to be closed and archived; and other site-wide improvements that no one seems to want to take responsibility for. Granted, a Sysop could handle a lot of these, but I get the impression that no one really knows what to do or is bold enough to do so, and that's when we need another 'crat to issue the directive or do it himself. Chiafriend, for the most part, is content with letting discussions and debates sort themselves out; Saint himself has stated that it takes the load off his shoulders. That should be sufficient reason to get a third bureaucrat to get the magic number of 3 to balance things out. Besides, I'd rather have 3 'crats that settle in now instead of waiting until COD7 to hastily promote people up. --Scottie theNerd 06:06, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Eh? File:US Army WWII MSGT.pngSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 03:35, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Support - First of all, I agree with Saint. Second, I believe we need one more bureaucrat, and Callofduty4 seems to me to be the right one for the job. A classic triumvirate: we need three bureaucrats, as two 'crats just isn't enough my opinion. He has devoted much time to this wiki and I believe he truly cares; with his new powers will be able to help. Scottie makes an excellent point what with the need for bureaucrats before another flood of internet traffic. Support - After just a few minutes of talking with him in IRC, he quelled every doubt that I had about him. Other than that, I think Scottie summed it up quite nicely. Imrlybord7 07:31, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Support - You took my advice about your last RfB, that shows you respect the "pro-noob" editor. (Sorry about stealing your phrase Bord). Anyways, I can tell from your RfB you have clearly taken the last RfB into account, you realised Saint was picked fairly, and this time you aren't bring activity and mainspace count into it. The only blemishes I can see are unblocking PGB and maybe that little spit about Scottie on Griever's RfA. If you do become a 'crat though, you need to be super-active. Chia is the conservative 'crat who tends to be in favour of COD:G, and I haven't seen Saint in action (I'm not in his timezone). I think we need a 'crat who can act on his instinct, like Scottie said, you get things done. Also, I will admit I'd like to see an admin I would refer to as a friend be a 'crat. But 3 is the magic number, and I think you'll be the last for a long time to come. Smuff 11:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Chia does not support COD:G, at least not in the way you are referring to. Imrlybord7 08:31, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Comment - Would you like to elaborate on your reasoning? Because I don't see what you mean. Also, who is the better candidate? You've spilled the beans, now you might as well say who he is. 15:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Darthkenobi0 was referring to his nomination of EightOhEight for bureaucrat. If you missed it, don't worry. I never saw it open either :3 --Scottie theNerd 16:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Change to Strong Support- Recantly me and COD4 had a disscussion, and between that and reviewing his work i now fully support him as a strong, kind, inteligent user (please excuse any spelling errors). File:Personal Gen.Cain sig.jpgT C E B 20:39, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Could you explain why you crossed out Darthkenobi's votes, and could you change the vote count appropriately? --Scottie theNerd 20:43, April 4, 2010 (UTC) I think it was a mistake - I fixed the crossings out. 20:48, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Strong Support - He is an overall great guy. He helped me out getting a sig and assigning it and put up with a hell of a lot of nooby questions. I would strongly support him as being an admin.Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 20:57, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Support - I don't know him well, I don't really know anyone well, but from what I've seen of him around and about in the Wiki, I think he'd make a great Bureaucrat. Decster97 07:18, April 5, 2010 (UTC) Support on Steroids- (Tries to think of something origanel) Aw, shit, per all (It hits PGB) He's helped me out when people have kicked me in the face over and over again. has supported me in my troubles and has seen things in my point of my view. File:Sergeant Insignia.pngPeter Griffen BoyRadio Operator Strong Support - Per TheManOfIron and everyone. File:Anim-harrier.gifSgt.ExAsk the Expert, He'll answer! 00:52, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Strong Support - You work your ass off on this wiki every day. This place would be chaos (or just bad) without you. Per everyone else who has that bold support sign. 7th Body 05:49, April 6, 2010 (UTC)7th Body Support - Per 7th Body - File:Personal StB sig.png 19:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Comment - Hmm. Looks like it's going to be Darkman that becomes the 'crat. File:Personal Cpl.Dunn sig.jpg 20:27, April 12, 2010 (UTC) Change to Neutral - We don't need another 'crat yet. File:Personal Cpl.Dunn sig.jpg 11:36, April 14, 2010 (UTC) Strong Support - Per all of those who support. You're a great editor, and should be a crat. File:Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2.gifSactage Talk 22:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC) Voting Closed - I don't know the outcome, though. 16:57, April 16, 2010 (UTC) Comment - I'm not quite sure what to do with this, Cod4. I'll wait for Chia to give his input, but I'm pretty confident you'll get it. The only thing holding me back is Darkman's success - I'm sure if we need four bureaucrats. 21:00, April 16, 2010 (UTC) Comment - I believe it should be success, if it matters I would like to change my vote to support. File:Personal Darthkenobi0 Air-force-logo.jpgDarthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Editcount 05:43, April 17, 2010 (UTC) RfB unsuccessful - In a situation like this you need to look at the the points each side has. For states that he is plenty up to the job, trustworthy and all that while the against brings up the recent unblocking of PGB right after he was blocked (a tad questionable) and the question of whether we need another breaucrat, all valid points for and against. Consensus works off of the points provided more than anything, but when both sides are legit, the poercentages are then often the way to go, and upon doing the little math I have to do, it turns out that only 65% of the votes were in support. 70% support is honestly a quite rough consensus for an RfB and this just fell short of the low extreme. Callofduty4 will not receive the bureaucratic flag at this time. File:US Army WWII MSGT.pngSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 16:25, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)